 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Walters v. A-Way Tank Service12/29/2000
torts contained in [the Lloyds policy] precludes liability for the cost of defending against [Walters'] petition for . . . intentional tort." We interpret the memorandum and exhibit as placing before the trial court the conclusive effect of a prior ruling and not the interpretation of the policy language. Under the Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 1-3, we review only issues which were first submitted to the trial court, unless the interest of justice clearly requires otherwise. Accordingly, we will review at this time only the issue of the effect of the prior document entitled OPINION.
We do not find that the document entitled OPINION was in response to any specific pleading filed by any party but rather was an ex parte response by the court to discussions held at a status conference. Additionally, after this document was filed, A-Way asked for clarification, and the judgment resulting from the clarification hearing referenced only the negligence issue. Therefore, we do not conclude that the trial court has ever affirmatively ruled on the insurance coverage issue. Thus, we decline to accept Lloyds' position as to the effect of that ex parte response by the trial court. Rather, we reverse the judgment below to the extent of the dismissal of Lloyds on this issue and remand for further proceedings.
DISPOSITION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the summary judgment to the extent of the dismissal of Lloyds on the insurance policy issue and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm the judgment in all other respects. Additionally, we assess fifty percent of the costs of this appeal to A-Way and fifty percent to Lloyds.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|